U.S. Constitution, Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17: [The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States.

It is not a state because it is constitutionally not a state. The Federal Capitol cannot be within the jurisdiction of a state. They do not have real representation because the city is a direct dominion of the Congress. Allowing a direct dominion of the congress to have voting representatives in that congress is basically the political equivalent of dividing by zero.

DC can't have statehood, it'll fark up the row counts of stars on the flag. Do you really want to go from 9 rows alternating between 6 and 5 to six rows alternating between 9 and 8? No. DC is going to have to wait for Guam, Puerto Rico, and either the NorCal/SoCal split or the annexation of Nova Scotia, for a full six rows of 9.

We'll take them as a full crew, all at once, or not at all. And I tell you folks, Guam ain't getting it's act together any time soon, and you can never count on a Californian to make a deadline.

Well, that depends. Article Four says Congress can form new states, but they are barred from creating a state with another state's territory without that state's consent. So Congress does have the power to make DC a state, but it's unclear if Maryland would have to give consent (and, if it has to give consent, whether it would do so).

The reason why it wasn't a state initially was because no one wanted Congressmen and various Federal officials to have additional representation in DC by voting people into the House and the Senate. But that idea is very antiquated now that many people who live in DC actually have nothing to do with the running of the Federal government.

Teiritzamna:U.S. Constitution, Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17: [The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States.

It is not a state because it is constitutionally not a state. The Federal Capitol cannot be within the jurisdiction of a state. They do not have real representation because the city is a direct dominion of the Congress. Allowing a direct dominion of the congress to have voting representatives in that congress is basically the political equivalent of dividing by zero.

Maybe they could whip up some sort of crazy compromise; narrow the Capital District so that it's just the area around the Capitol Building and the White House, and give the city proper to Virginia or Maryland.

qorkfiend:Teiritzamna: U.S. Constitution, Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17: [The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States.

It is not a state because it is constitutionally not a state. The Federal Capitol cannot be within the jurisdiction of a state. They do not have real representation because the city is a direct dominion of the Congress. Allowing a direct dominion of the congress to have voting representatives in that congress is basically the political equivalent of dividing by zero.

Maybe they could whip up some sort of crazy compromise; narrow the Capital District so that it's just the area around the Capitol Building and the White House, and give the city proper to Virginia or Maryland.

That is usually the out that i have heard most - just make the actual people who live in DC citizens of Maryland and give dominion over to the actual federal buildings. Its tricky though, both politically and logistically, as part of the purpose of having the District is to ensure that the Center of the Federal Government is not at the mercy of the laws of a particular state. Although it is unlikely, ceding control of much of the city to Maryland could allow Maryland laws to affect the functioning of gov disproportionately to the power of others states. That's the fear.

If you all are looking to reform something, how about the Mainlands association with its territories?Some of which have residents who are not only being denied their presidential vote and their right to self determination, but also proper representation in congress as well as their full citizenship. We can't even pass a constitution without congress swatting it down.This despite the fact we are still had to take part in military drafts and have to abide by federal laws we can't vote on.

If the politicians have got the free time to sort out DC's status, they should take a moment and resolve ours.

way south:If you all are looking to reform something, how about the Mainlands association with its territories?Some of which have residents who are not only being denied their presidential vote and their right to self determination, but also proper representation in congress as well as their full citizenship. We can't even pass a constitution without congress swatting it down.This despite the fact we are still had to take part in military drafts and have to abide by federal laws we can't vote on.

If the politicians have got the free time to sort out DC's status, they should take a moment and resolve ours.

Statehood should have its own particular advantage IMO. How would you feel about the franchise and for your representatives being full members of the House? (no Senators, not yours)

There is no Constitutional limit on how small DC can be, I believe. Shrink DC to be just the part from the Capitol to the Lincoln memorial and the the White House to the Washington Monument, to be run by a civic authority appointed by Congress (to help coordinate roads/utilities/transit with Maryland and Virginia authorities). Make it so that the only person eligible to claim residency is the president for their term in office. Then give the rest to Maryland to be a city called Washington, Maryland.

palelizard:Vegetable Medley: Statehood should have its own particular advantage IMO.

What increased responsibilities do they have to get those advantages over a protectorate/territory?

It's not a matter of responsibilities. It's whether or not the rest of the states want to let you into the club. I'm not saying it'a fair, but that's our Constitution for you. If merely meeting all prerequisites were enough, what's to stop other nations from deciding to become one?

Vegetable Medley:It's not a matter of responsibilities. It's whether or not the rest of the states want to let you into the club. I'm not saying it'a fair, but that's our Constitution for you. If merely meeting all prerequisites were enough, what's to stop other nations from deciding to become one?

Not that I'd have a problem with Canada...

...or any of our territories really....

Certainly joining should be subject to approval, but when you're subjecting American terroritories to rulership and the obligations of citizenship (draft, taxes, laws, etc) without providing them the corresponding rights (participation in the presidential election, for instance), you're setting up a taxation without representation scenario--something we so proudly defied long ago.

While I acknowledge, on a practical level, there needs to be some in-between stage, every terroritorial holding needs to either be on a path to statehood (in case we permanently want the thing) or independence (in case we don't). I'm not even requiring it be a quick timeline, but there does need to be some direction and expectation of change. With the scope of our technology and military might, distance is practically irrelevant and if there's a significant cultural disparity from the mainland, compare it to other state-to-state disparities, and if it's still too big, U.S.ify them--drop a coke vending machine on every street corner, right beside the Starbucks and across from the McDonalds, then flood the airwaves with our television shows. In a generation, they'll be us, and thirty years is still a reasonable time for assimilation.

Or attach certain rights to certain obligations, across the board. If you can be drafted, you have a right to vote and have it counted.

palelizard:Vegetable Medley: It's not a matter of responsibilities. It's whether or not the rest of the states want to let you into the club. I'm not saying it'a fair, but that's our Constitution for you. If merely meeting all prerequisites were enough, what's to stop other nations from deciding to become one?

Not that I'd have a problem with Canada...

...or any of our territories really....

Certainly joining should be subject to approval, but when you're subjecting American terroritories to rulership and the obligations of citizenship (draft, taxes, laws, etc) without providing them the corresponding rights (participation in the presidential election, for instance), you're setting up a taxation without representation scenario--something we so proudly defied long ago.

While I acknowledge, on a practical level, there needs to be some in-between stage, every terroritorial holding needs to either be on a path to statehood (in case we permanently want the thing) or independence (in case we don't). I'm not even requiring it be a quick timeline, but there does need to be some direction and expectation of change. With the scope of our technology and military might, distance is practically irrelevant and if there's a significant cultural disparity from the mainland, compare it to other state-to-state disparities, and if it's still too big, U.S.ify them--drop a coke vending machine on every street corner, right beside the Starbucks and across from the McDonalds, then flood the airwaves with our television shows. In a generation, they'll be us, and thirty years is still a reasonable time for assimilation.

Or attach certain rights to certain obligations, across the board. If you can be drafted, you have a right to vote and have it counted.

That's a perfectly reasonable argument. Like I said, I don't have any issue with any of the territories obtaining statehood. DC, OTOH, is not a "territory."

Vegetable Medley:That's a perfectly reasonable argument. Like I said, I don't have any issue with any of the territories obtaining statehood. DC, OTOH, is not a "territory."

True, though when they created it, they didn't seem to expect people to actually live there full-time. Maybe they could roll the voting rights in with Maryland's or Virginia's, while leaving the rest the same.

palelizard:Vegetable Medley: That's a perfectly reasonable argument. Like I said, I don't have any issue with any of the territories obtaining statehood. DC, OTOH, is not a "territory."

True, though when they created it, they didn't seem to expect people to actually live there full-time. Maybe they could roll the voting rights in with Maryland's or Virginia's, while leaving the rest the same.

I'd just like to point out that many of the corrupt people in Washington, DC, came here from all four corners of the nation.

Half the sleaze of government is people trying to get government money and contracts and send them back to some shiathole state or another.

It's not like people come here to work for the government, shed all ties to their former states, and become "DC people", who can then be disowned and mocked by an innocent, victimized nation. No, no, no. Take responsibility for sending them here.

palelizard:DC can't have statehood, it'll fark up the row counts of stars on the flag. Do you really want to go from 9 rows alternating between 6 and 5 to six rows alternating between 9 and 8? No. DC is going to have to wait for Guam, Puerto Rico, and either the NorCal/SoCal split or the annexation of Nova Scotia, for a full six rows of 9.

We'll take them as a full crew, all at once, or not at all. And I tell you folks, Guam ain't getting it's act together any time soon, and you can never count on a Californian to make a deadline.

The trick is that Maryland doesn't want them, and it is unclear whether Maryland can be forced to take them. Such a move might require a totally different constitutional amendment. So either way, you are likely going to have to amend the constitution.

saintstryfe:palelizard: DC can't have statehood, it'll fark up the row counts of stars on the flag. Do you really want to go from 9 rows alternating between 6 and 5 to six rows alternating between 9 and 8? No. DC is going to have to wait for Guam, Puerto Rico, and either the NorCal/SoCal split or the annexation of Nova Scotia, for a full six rows of 9.

We'll take them as a full crew, all at once, or not at all. And I tell you folks, Guam ain't getting it's act together any time soon, and you can never count on a Californian to make a deadline.[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x336]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/US_flag_51_s t ars.svg/800px-US_flag_51_stars.svg.png

way south:If you all are looking to reform something, how about the Mainlands association with its territories?Some of which have residents who are not only being denied their presidential vote and their right to self determination, but also proper representation in congress as well as their full citizenship. We can't even pass a constitution without congress swatting it down.This despite the fact we are still had to take part in military drafts and have to abide by federal laws we can't vote on.

Actually I've long argued that what the District really wants is territorial status as with USVI, PR, etc. Two reasons: 1) No federal income tax; and 2) Olympic team! DC as a federal-tax haven would attract loads of residence, which is a big part of what we need. And the Olympic team. I would totally make a DC olympic team in something. Curling maybe. People would move here just for olympic opportunities. We could build it into a sports mecca. It'd be awesome.

Oh, and 4 of the last, what, 9 Illinois governors went to prison and at least two more probably should have gone. Until a serious movement to toss Illinois out of the Union starts you can spare me the Marion Berry cracks. (oops)

Can't the just say "the area known as the District of Columbia" is granted rights and privileges of statehood - a Representative in Congress (I believe when this one was last tried, the GOP-led Congress tied it to giving deep-red Utah another House vote, too; probably by reallocating existing Members rather than going to 437 Reps) and 2 Senators, plus some slices of Federal funding?

Though I think that's where DC would lose big. The pie being divided among the states would then be divided into 51 parts, rather than DC getting cash direct from the Feds (as it currently is done, separately?).

Dr Dreidel:Can't the just say "the area known as the District of Columbia" is granted rights and privileges of statehood - a Representative in Congress (I believe when this one was last tried, the GOP-led Congress tied it to giving deep-red Utah another House vote, too; probably by reallocating existing Members rather than going to 437 Reps) and 2 Senators, plus some slices of Federal funding?

Though I think that's where DC would lose big. The pie being divided among the states would then be divided into 51 parts, rather than DC getting cash direct from the Feds (as it currently is done, separately?).

Once again, under the constitutional framework: no they likely cannot just say it without an amendment.

Teiritzamna:Dr Dreidel: Can't the just say "the area known as the District of Columbia" is granted rights and privileges of statehood - a Representative in Congress (I believe when this one was last tried, the GOP-led Congress tied it to giving deep-red Utah another House vote, too; probably by reallocating existing Members rather than going to 437 Reps) and 2 Senators, plus some slices of Federal funding?

Though I think that's where DC would lose big. The pie being divided among the states would then be divided into 51 parts, rather than DC getting cash direct from the Feds (as it currently is done, separately?).

Once again, under the constitutional framework: no they likely cannot just say it without an amendment.

Teiritzamna:U.S. Constitution, Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17: [The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States.

Doesn't that citation suggest that Congress can just pass a new bill? If it's a Congressional power to exercise legislation, why involve state legislatures or put it to a vote?

MD already ceded the land for DC, and Congress already accepted that (making the last 2 clauses moot). We're left with "the Congress shall have Power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over [the] District..." - so long as Congress passes a DC statehood bill and nothing the new State of DC does conflicts with existing Congressional rules (or those rules are amended/tossed when DC gets statehood), why would they need a 28th Amendment to give DC statehood?

Dr Dreidel:Teiritzamna: Dr Dreidel: Can't the just say "the area known as the District of Columbia" is granted rights and privileges of statehood - a Representative in Congress (I believe when this one was last tried, the GOP-led Congress tied it to giving deep-red Utah another House vote, too; probably by reallocating existing Members rather than going to 437 Reps) and 2 Senators, plus some slices of Federal funding?

Though I think that's where DC would lose big. The pie being divided among the states would then be divided into 51 parts, rather than DC getting cash direct from the Feds (as it currently is done, separately?).

Once again, under the constitutional framework: no they likely cannot just say it without an amendment.

Teiritzamna: U.S. Constitution, Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17: [The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States.

Doesn't that citation suggest that Congress can just pass a new bill? If it's a Congressional power to exercise legislation, why involve state legislatures or put it to a vote?

MD already ceded the land for DC, and Congress already accepted that (making the last 2 clauses moot). We're left with "the Congress shall have Power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over [the] District..." - so long as Congress passes a DC statehood bill and nothing the new State of DC does conflicts with existing Congressional rules (or those rules are amended/tossed when DC gets statehood), why would they need a 28th Amendment to give DC statehood?

Under National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., Inc, 337 U.S. 582 (1949), the district is not a state. As such, if congress could give it voting rights reserved to states within the text of the constitution by fiat, then the Congress is unlimited in what it could within the district. Generally this is considered to not be the case. So basically Congress by legislation cannot grant to a non-state those rights reserved to states, which includes representation in Congress.

There is also the argument of creating a state is a constitutional prerogative given to Art I branch, but which is not legislative in character. It is instead a constitutional power. Where the constitution says that Congress has the power to "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" within the District, that just speaks to the fact that they have general legislative police power within that territory. The ability to create a state, or grant representation (which constitutionally is the same thing) is not within that authority to "legislate."

Vegetable Medley:Statehood should have its own particular advantage IMO. How would you feel about the franchise and for your representatives being full members of the House? (no Senators, not yours)

States get alot more of everything from representation to federal funds.The important thing here is having something that makes it worth pandering to our handful of congress critters, even if its small. Congressional votes and a shared electoral for the territories is about all I'd ask for.Just enough to be remembered in tight election years but not enough to unbalance the system.

/Either that or dispense with the nonsense and appoint military trained governors./Rule legitimately or rule properly, but the half stepping is killing us./At 26% unemployment, it is quite literally killing us.